The Husband (I really should give him a name) and I participated in the Contra Costa County Join the Impact rally on Saturday in Walnut Creek. I was pretty amazed at the turnout, I must say. The website has links to photos, which at some point should include a fair number taken by The Husband.
The organizer, Brittney, said she was expecting about 50 people. What she got was almost 500 people of all ages coming together to show their support for equality. It was quite a sight to see. I think my favorite was a quite elderly gentleman with a cane and a sign reading "Protect All Marriages." I felt bad that I didn't have a chair to offer him, but he was there with his sign through the whole rally.
And so many families. Mothers and fathers with little kids in strollers and backpacks. Grandparents and parents demonstrating for their gay children and grandchildren. Teenagers standing strong for their parents. Incredible.
I can't even really call it a protest. Spirits were high, there was so much laughter and support, even through the righteous anger. These folks were demonstrating-demonstrating their love, their compassion, their strength, their promise. It was incredibly moving and I spent the whole morning with my eyes leaking, damn it.
Most people who passed by were either supporting or non-committal. Only a few were cranky. One fellow was very concerned for our souls and was walking up and down the street saying "God created Adam and Eve, not Eve and Steve." I'm not sure he was really representative of the opposition, though.
One man showed up with a sign saying that our real goal is your children's minds. In a way he's right, I guess. I want to break his monopoly on brainwashing kids to heteronormativity. Equal Opportunity Brainwashing, I say! The back of his sign read "Spoiled Brats." I'm unclear as to whom that referred. I'm guessing us.
The person I found most interesting was the man who ended up stopped at the red light. When he stuck his "thumbs down" sign out his open window, folks started asking him why he supported taking people's rights away. All he could say was an amazed "You guys lost. You're LOSERS!" like he couldn't believe it.
So here's what I find interesting about this gentleman. First, he seems to have a strange idea of how democracy works--like just because something's been voted on, it's now set in stone. Does he really not realize that if we voted on it once, we can vote on it again?
Second, I have to wonder what kind of world a person lives in where the worst thing they can think of to call someone is a loser. Really? A loser? I'm a feminist, a liberal, and a drama geek. Does he really think I've never been called a loser before? Does he really think that if he points out that we lost that we'll go "Oh, shit! He's right! We'd better just go home and forget about equal rights 'cause 52% of the voters of California said Teh Gheys aren't good enough for marriage"? What's that all about?
Anyway, I was so proud of my county and of the affluent white suburb of Walnut Creek. I didn't think the town my friend Rachel refers to as "Blonde Ponytail Land" had it in them, but I was wrong. Damn it, my eyes are leaking again.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Join the Impact, Fight the H8
This Saturday, a folks from all 50 states and at least a couple of other countries will Join the Impact in a nationwide protest against the recently passed anti-gay initiatives in California, Arkansas, Florida, and Arizona. The Husband and I will be at Walnut Creek City Hall. To find a rally near you, click the link above. Please join me in protesting in support of equality for all. Fight the H8!
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Ghost Tour Review: San Francisco Ghost Hunt
The San Francisco Ghost Hunt, run by Jim Fassbinder, is an enjoyable three hours of spooky fun and a great easy walk through lower Pacific Heights.
Jim is an engaging and talented storyteller with an outstanding sense of timing. The stories are just scary enough to cause pleasant shivers, but not so scary that you'll be freaked out to cross the hall to the bathroom at night. You'll also get a nice dose of San Francisco history that you won't get from guidebooks or 4th grade social studies.
You can get more information about the San Francisco Ghost Hunt at www.sfghosthunt.com
Jim is an engaging and talented storyteller with an outstanding sense of timing. The stories are just scary enough to cause pleasant shivers, but not so scary that you'll be freaked out to cross the hall to the bathroom at night. You'll also get a nice dose of San Francisco history that you won't get from guidebooks or 4th grade social studies.
You can get more information about the San Francisco Ghost Hunt at www.sfghosthunt.com
I'm not inspired. No, really.
It's true. I'm one of the only self-proclaimed liberals I know who wasn't blown away by Obama's victory speech.
Yes, I know it was last week. Hush.
Don't get me wrong. The fact that this country elected an African-American person President? Inspiring. The sight of Jesse Jackson with tears streaming down his face? Awesome. Truly. The footage of people from all walks of life dancing and crying and screaming for joy? Beautiful.
His speech? Eh.
It's taken me this long to break down and analyze my reaction. I mean, for the last eight years the only presidential speeches I've listened to have been written by Aaron Sorkin. There was always the possibility that the problem was just that Barack Obama wasn't Josiah Bartlet.
I've come to the conclusion that that's not the problem. The problem is women and action.
Obama mentions women in three places in his speech--twice specific women and once as a group. The first time, women are in support positions--his wife and daughters, sisters, and grandmother. They are remarkable only for their relationship to him, their support. Classic "behind every good man" stuff.
The second time he mentions a woman, he talks about 106 year-old Ann Nixon Cooper. The whole discussion of Mrs. Cooper centers around what she's seen. There is no mention of what she has done. She is a witness--passive, removed. And when he goes on to speculate about what his own daughters will see if they live into the next century, he asks "what progress will we have made?" But his daughters are described, like Mrs. Cooper, as passive witnesses.
Only once does Obama describe women in an active role--when he describes the suffragists. But they are separate from women today; they are removed from today's struggles as described in Obama's speech. Women are never specifically included in his call to action. He mentions Republicans, Democrats, gays, disabled folks, African Americans, Latinos, Asians, and Native Americans. He does not include women.
I will be the first to admit that everything I know about Presidential speechwriting I learned from Toby Ziegler and Sam Seaborn on The West Wing. But I don't think that there are many accidents in a speech like this. Were women excluded deliberately? Were they originally included but then cut from the final draft? Maybe Obama and his speechwriters just didn't notice that they assigned women the same passive support roles we've been assigned since before the founding of this country.
Whatever the explanation, they missed an opportunity to inspire this woman to action. I will act, because it is not in my nature to be passive. But inspiration? Not so much.
Yes, I know it was last week. Hush.
Don't get me wrong. The fact that this country elected an African-American person President? Inspiring. The sight of Jesse Jackson with tears streaming down his face? Awesome. Truly. The footage of people from all walks of life dancing and crying and screaming for joy? Beautiful.
His speech? Eh.
It's taken me this long to break down and analyze my reaction. I mean, for the last eight years the only presidential speeches I've listened to have been written by Aaron Sorkin. There was always the possibility that the problem was just that Barack Obama wasn't Josiah Bartlet.
I've come to the conclusion that that's not the problem. The problem is women and action.
Obama mentions women in three places in his speech--twice specific women and once as a group. The first time, women are in support positions--his wife and daughters, sisters, and grandmother. They are remarkable only for their relationship to him, their support. Classic "behind every good man" stuff.
The second time he mentions a woman, he talks about 106 year-old Ann Nixon Cooper. The whole discussion of Mrs. Cooper centers around what she's seen. There is no mention of what she has done. She is a witness--passive, removed. And when he goes on to speculate about what his own daughters will see if they live into the next century, he asks "what progress will we have made?" But his daughters are described, like Mrs. Cooper, as passive witnesses.
Only once does Obama describe women in an active role--when he describes the suffragists. But they are separate from women today; they are removed from today's struggles as described in Obama's speech. Women are never specifically included in his call to action. He mentions Republicans, Democrats, gays, disabled folks, African Americans, Latinos, Asians, and Native Americans. He does not include women.
I will be the first to admit that everything I know about Presidential speechwriting I learned from Toby Ziegler and Sam Seaborn on The West Wing. But I don't think that there are many accidents in a speech like this. Were women excluded deliberately? Were they originally included but then cut from the final draft? Maybe Obama and his speechwriters just didn't notice that they assigned women the same passive support roles we've been assigned since before the founding of this country.
Whatever the explanation, they missed an opportunity to inspire this woman to action. I will act, because it is not in my nature to be passive. But inspiration? Not so much.
Friday, November 7, 2008
I'm Sure You're Right: A Letter to the Sponsors of Proposition 8
Some context--I sent this to the official Yes on 8 folks.
Well, congratulations. You’ve managed to enshrine discrimination in the California constitution.
I heard your arguments for why it’s ok to discriminate against gays in this instance. I listened to them because I wanted to understand.
“It’s not about hate!” you said. I’m sure you’re right. I’m sure I must have been mistaken when I thought I saw disgust on the faces of the charming couple from Massachusetts featured in your ads and on your website. I’m sure it was just difference of opinion. They don’t hate gays, after all. They don’t consider them less than human, or second-class citizens. They just wouldn’t want their children to think it’s ok to be one.
“It’s not discrimination because gays have all the same protections through domestic partnerships! It’s exactly the same!” you said. I’m sure you’re right. I’m sure the federal government recognizes that they’re the same and affords all the federal level marriage protections to domestic partnerships, too. And since it’s exactly the same, I’m sure you would have no problem at all if straight couples were only allowed to have domestic partnerships recognized by the State as well. Except, no, wait. That’s not what you want, is it? So maybe they’re not exactly the same after all.
“ We have to protect traditional marriage!” you said. I’m sure you’re right. I’m sure heterosexual marriage today looks exactly like it always has. I’m sure married women have always been able to own property, and practice their religion as they see fit, and divorce men who beat them. I’m sure that marriage has always been between one man and one woman and that there’s never been state-sanctioned polygamy since the beginning of history. I’m sure that the same arguments were never used against interracial marriage. Also, I’m sure that all traditions are always good.
“Activist judges thwarted the will of the majority!” you said. I’m sure you’re right. I’m sure that the judicial branch’s constitutional mandate as determined by over 200 years of jurisprudence is to protect the will of the majority. I’m sure that the courts in this country have no duty at all to protect the rights of the minority, especially a constitutionally protected class (at least in California), against de Tocqueville’s “Tyranny of the Majority”.
State recognized same-sex marriage doesn’t infringe on your rights. It doesn’t infringe on your right to practice your religion. It doesn’t infringe on your right to marry someone of the opposite sex. It doesn’t infringe on your right to “disagree with the gay lifestyle” or your right to say so. It doesn’t infringe on your right to free exercise, free speech, or peaceable assembly. It doesn’t infringe on your right to bear arms, your right against self-incrimination, your right to vote, your right to equal protection, or your right against unreasonable search and seizure. As near as I can tell, the only right it infringes on is your right to be comfortable with your own unchallenged mean-spiritedness and selfishness, which isn’t really a right at all.
The one solace that I find in your victory is the fact that despite the disingenuous ads, despite the fear-mongering, despite the appeals to Californians’ own worst natures, despite the “Who Would Jesus Blackmail” threatening letters and the millions of dollars spent in possible violation of the LDS church’s tax exempt status, you only managed to convince 52% of California voters that bigotry was worth protecting. Only 52%. Let’s ponder that for a moment.
52% down from 61% only a few years ago. Even assuming that the ACLU and Lambda Legal challenges to this abomination fail, that means that change is still coming, and there’s nothing you can do to stop it. The war is far from over, so enjoy your victory while you can. Then put on your big kid pants and prepare to deal with equality. Because it’s coming. I’m sure of it.
Well, congratulations. You’ve managed to enshrine discrimination in the California constitution.
I heard your arguments for why it’s ok to discriminate against gays in this instance. I listened to them because I wanted to understand.
“It’s not about hate!” you said. I’m sure you’re right. I’m sure I must have been mistaken when I thought I saw disgust on the faces of the charming couple from Massachusetts featured in your ads and on your website. I’m sure it was just difference of opinion. They don’t hate gays, after all. They don’t consider them less than human, or second-class citizens. They just wouldn’t want their children to think it’s ok to be one.
“It’s not discrimination because gays have all the same protections through domestic partnerships! It’s exactly the same!” you said. I’m sure you’re right. I’m sure the federal government recognizes that they’re the same and affords all the federal level marriage protections to domestic partnerships, too. And since it’s exactly the same, I’m sure you would have no problem at all if straight couples were only allowed to have domestic partnerships recognized by the State as well. Except, no, wait. That’s not what you want, is it? So maybe they’re not exactly the same after all.
“ We have to protect traditional marriage!” you said. I’m sure you’re right. I’m sure heterosexual marriage today looks exactly like it always has. I’m sure married women have always been able to own property, and practice their religion as they see fit, and divorce men who beat them. I’m sure that marriage has always been between one man and one woman and that there’s never been state-sanctioned polygamy since the beginning of history. I’m sure that the same arguments were never used against interracial marriage. Also, I’m sure that all traditions are always good.
“Activist judges thwarted the will of the majority!” you said. I’m sure you’re right. I’m sure that the judicial branch’s constitutional mandate as determined by over 200 years of jurisprudence is to protect the will of the majority. I’m sure that the courts in this country have no duty at all to protect the rights of the minority, especially a constitutionally protected class (at least in California), against de Tocqueville’s “Tyranny of the Majority”.
State recognized same-sex marriage doesn’t infringe on your rights. It doesn’t infringe on your right to practice your religion. It doesn’t infringe on your right to marry someone of the opposite sex. It doesn’t infringe on your right to “disagree with the gay lifestyle” or your right to say so. It doesn’t infringe on your right to free exercise, free speech, or peaceable assembly. It doesn’t infringe on your right to bear arms, your right against self-incrimination, your right to vote, your right to equal protection, or your right against unreasonable search and seizure. As near as I can tell, the only right it infringes on is your right to be comfortable with your own unchallenged mean-spiritedness and selfishness, which isn’t really a right at all.
The one solace that I find in your victory is the fact that despite the disingenuous ads, despite the fear-mongering, despite the appeals to Californians’ own worst natures, despite the “Who Would Jesus Blackmail” threatening letters and the millions of dollars spent in possible violation of the LDS church’s tax exempt status, you only managed to convince 52% of California voters that bigotry was worth protecting. Only 52%. Let’s ponder that for a moment.
52% down from 61% only a few years ago. Even assuming that the ACLU and Lambda Legal challenges to this abomination fail, that means that change is still coming, and there’s nothing you can do to stop it. The war is far from over, so enjoy your victory while you can. Then put on your big kid pants and prepare to deal with equality. Because it’s coming. I’m sure of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
